# Senate Passes FDA Tobacco Bill



## Catholicsmoker

Mod- I realized after posting that this probably doesn't go in this forum. Can you please change it to the tobacco legislation area. Thank you.

It looks like the Senate passed through the bill. Lets hope that the House doesn't pass it through as well. I'd hate to see what it does to pipe tobacco and cigars. At least they made specific mention that not inhaling is healthier for you. This is quite ridiculous. Next thing you know , they'll be regulating and taxing candy bars because sugar is a drug and it makes you fat.
*
Senate Passes FDA Tobacco Bill - WSJ.com

By ALICIA MUNDY and LAUREN ETTER *

WASHINGTON -- The Senate overwhelmingly passed historic legislation Thursday that puts the tobacco industry under the regulation of the Food and Drug Administration.
Companies are weighing the impact of the bill, which they say also puts severe, perhaps unconstitutional, restrictions on advertising and packaging. Those limits, they worry, could undo business plans based on smokeless tobacco products, which they have been developing in anticipation of this day -- even as they were fighting to derail the legislation.
Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, who spearheaded the original effort to treat the nicotine in tobacco as a drug, hailed the Senate vote of 79-17. "It's as strong a bill as we could have ever imagined," he said.
He said the industry fees mandated by the bill to pay for FDA regulation will enable the regulator to strictly enforce new rules, such as a ban on candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes. "With $600 [million] to $700 million from industry to support it, I think the administration can set it up."
The House passed a similar bill in April. The Senate version likely will be approved by the House on Friday and sent to President Barack Obama for signing.
Critics said the bill will establish a new federal bureaucracy and unfairly benefit Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc., which dominates U.S. cigarette sales. Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) said restrictions in the bill will hinder smaller companies from introducing products.
Altria praised the legislation overall, saying it will require all tobacco makers to operate "at the same high standards." The company said, however, that it has First Amendment concerns about some advertising curbs. Industry officials said lawsuits could tie the legislation down.
Since 1998, the industry has spent nearly $308 million in lobbying to block the bill. Cigarette makers have seen sales shrink in the past decade. They have been operating under some advertising restrictions that were part of their 1999 settlement with 46 states, led by Mississippi, which sued the companies for costs from tobacco-related deaths and illnesses.
One key question is whether the bill's advertising restrictions will undo industry efforts to compensate for declining cigarette sales by moving aggressively into smokeless products. Several companies have begun developing snus -- spit-free smokeless tobacco in pouches -- and dissolvable tobacco pellets. Reynolds American Inc. is marketing Camel Snus nationwide, using the name of one of its best brands, and testing its Camel Orbs -- dissolvable tobacco pellets -- in limited markets.

Philip Morris USA recently spent $10.3 billion to acquire the largest smokeless tobacco maker, UST Inc., known for brands like Copenhagen and Skoal. And, after some disappointing results with some early versions of snus and moist tobacco products, the company has introduced a new Marlboro Snus in limited markets.
While controversial, some research shows that smokeless tobacco products may be less harmful because they generally contain fewer carcinogens than cigarettes and don't enter the lungs.
Companies had hoped the bill would make it easier to advertise the lower risk of the smokeless products. But the new regulations still don't allow smokeless-tobacco makers to say their products are healthier unless they can prove that to the FDA.
The regulations also require makers to pull from the market products that were introduced after February 2007, which could hurt some dissolvable tobacco pellets and strips. Some snus products will likely be exempt because similar pouches were on sale before that date.
This bill "could significantly chill the introduction or commercialization of new tobacco products that have significantly lower risks than cigarettes," said Tommy Payne, a Reynolds spokesman.
The new ban on candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes isn't expected to have a big financial impact. Menthol cigarettes are initially exempt from the ban because of demands from the Congressional Black Caucus. About 75% of African-American smokers buy menthol brands.
The FDA is required to set up an advisory panel that will report within a year on whether menthol should be banned.
The FDA must name the head of the new tobacco division. One potential candidate is Deputy Secretary for Health and Human Services Bill Corr, who was previously the lobbyist for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
The bill's lead sponsor, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.), is seriously ill and couldn't come to the Senate to vote.


> -Jake Sherman contributed to this article.


----------



## Doogie

to my knowledge the house has thier version. this bill is aimed more at cigarrette, but we always get lumped in


----------



## plexiprs

A prohibition against added flavoring agents does impact pipe smokers. Also, all products are subject to the same requirements no found in Europe to declare all contents of all products and receive approval, after testing, for any "unnatural" additives.

Sauces, flavorings, casings ...... are aromatics in trouble?


----------



## Rev2010

You guys should read the book "The Death of Common Sense" By Philip K. Howard. It's about how law has gotten out of control, and he himself is a lawyer. It's very enlightening and some of his examples will make you shake your head.

Things really are getting out of whack here. And what bothers me the most is how it always comes under the guise of wanting to "protect people". The funniest thing about that is it seems they want every human being on the planet to live as long as possible. And that is funny considering how concerned we are about the environmental problems we are facing. Well, the more humans on the planet the worse things will be. More resources used, more pollution, more trash, etc. I'm not saying that it's good that people are dying from this stuff. Hell, I lost my step father to his smoking of non filter Lucky Strikes for 41 years. I just find it funny that they don't realize the full effect of trying to be every humans saviour.

I for sure want to live as long as possible. However, I know the risks of smoking cigars and it's my choice. Some dumb jackass on Capital Hill shouldn't be trying to protect every aspect of my well being, especially when I don't want him to. What I find funniest though is how they zero in on specific things while completely ignoring others. I work in Manhattan and live in Jersey. The air quality is terrible. Not only do I have to breathe in the emissions of 50,000+ vehicles but also the factory emissions in Jersey. But that's perfectly ok right? Oh, because it would actually cost money to find ways to curb such emissions or invent cleaner forms of energy and implent them.

What about all the bad foods out there? Nearly every fastfood restaurants food is bad for you. And, as expected, the government has already gotten itself involved in that. New York City has banned Trans-fats and required all chain restaurants to post the calorie counts. Funny thing is a new investigation has shown the calorie counts listed are often seriously incorrect, both better and worse! Most of the chains didn't even have real tests done on their menu items to determine the calorie count.

I guarantee that one day smoking will be completely banned. And along with it I guarantee that one day alcohol will be banned. And I also woudn't doubt that someday fast food will be heavily regulated to save the poor "obese children". The government is always trying to keep moving and when they run out of one thing to attack they jump on the next. And nowadays no one is allowed to use their common sense and think for themselves, or raise their kids properly. These days the government has to do the thinking, and very poorly at that, for all of us.


Rev.


----------



## Rubix^3

The thing you have to understand about politicians with this social engineering mindset, is that they treat individuals as their "society" that they, with their superior intelligence and empathy, must mold and shape into a micro-managed utopia. They will usurp any free system, such as capitalism, for their own agendas, using the "common good" as their justification.
The Nanny State is just beginning. 
Sorry so politicky. Move along...


----------



## Raybird

The government wants to "protect" us from the evils of tobacco? Each freedom they take away from us makes it easier to take away another. I don't need these effin' nazis to protect me from myself! I never thought I would miss George Bush.


----------



## golfermd

Gotta love the liberals. They pay lip service to personal freedoms and rights, but do everything they can to regulate and/or reduce them. Of course they are the ones who decide what those rights are. :tease:


----------



## Mr.Lordi

golfermd said:


> Gotta love the liberals. They pay lip service to personal freedoms and rights, but do everything they can to regulate and/or reduce them. Of course they are the ones who decide what those rights are. :tease:


This is yet another irony when it comes to liberals. If a conservative dares say "Abortion should be illegal" they yell and complain "Oh my God, a woman has a RIGHT to choose, it is her body"

Yet when it comes to smoking, we don't have the right to choose what happens to our body?

Absurd! All I know is that in 2012, I'm voting republican, again. lol! There was a time when I considered myself a liberal, but they seriously irk me to no end now and I hate them. lol, I'm not exactly conservative either, but hey, least they don't f with my tobacco.

I hated Bush, and I wanted him gone too, but now I find myself missing him.


----------



## Raybird

SAME HERE! :anim_soapbox:


----------



## Shriner4cigars

:yell::mad2::mad2::frusty:


----------



## Mr.Lordi

I have a crazy idea, that could work, or maybe its my youth optimism that keeps me from realizing it won't work, but...Obama is alleged to read emails he receives from us "common" folk, right? 

What if all of us smokers, could coordinate a sending of mass amounts of emails, encouraging Obama to not sign this bill until it has been either rewritten to exclude pipe and cigars, or no signed at all.

I perfer it not signed at all, but I'll take the exclusion. lol


----------



## Rev2010

Mr.Lordi said:


> Obama is alleged to read emails he receives from us "common" folk, right?


Where did you read that? Everything I've read says presidents are required to forfeit any use of e-mail accounts, blackberry's, etc for national security. George Bush had to give up his AOL account. I seriously doubt Obama has the time or will to go through the (probably) hundreds of thousands of e-mails sent to the White House weekly.

Rev.


----------



## Habanolover

Mr.Lordi said:


> There was a time when I considered myself a liberal, but they seriously irk me to no end now and I hate them.


Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain............*Winston Churchill*


----------



## Rev2010

madurolover said:


> Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain............*Winston Churchill*


That saying right there is brilliant!

Rev.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

Rev2010 said:


> Where did you read that? Everything I've read says presidents are required to forfit any use of e-mail accounts, blackberry's, etc for national security. George Bush had to give up his AOL account. I seriously doubt Obama has the time or will to go through the (probably) hundreds of thousands of e-mails sent to the White House weekly.
> 
> Rev.


I'm not sure you can personally email him, although I just googled an article suggesting that Obama was allowed to keep his blackberry when looking for the original source.

Link:Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - It's official: Barack keeps his BlackBerry « - Blogs from CNN.com

What I recall reading, was, you can email him from like whitehouse.gov or something to that effect and he occasionally does read emails, time permitting. I think they print them off and give it to him. Wish I could find the original source.

Anyways, the idea was if enough emails got sent, Obama might find out about them, or because so many would get through, someone might foward one to him. This is spouse to be the administration of "change" after all. Plus if he can find the time to youtube....


----------



## bilingue23

madurolover said:


> Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain............*Winston Churchill*


Different version of the same quote:

If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.

A very good quote.

Does anyone know if/how this bill will impact cigars? With the taxes being raised and all these changes being made, i'm glad i'm stocked up!


----------



## Mr.Lordi

bilingue23 said:


> Different version of the same quote:
> 
> If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
> 
> A very good quote.


I actually disagree with both versions of this quote, as so much has changed since Churchhill's time and the issues of today are not reflective of the past.

a friend of mine is Pro-life, a very conservative stance. They don't want babies to be needlessly slaughtered. I would not say those who are young and pro-life are heartless at all, quite the contrary.

Also the youth of back then was a lot more optimistic then the youth of today. Back then the government was the good guys, who did no wrong.

The 60's radically change the culture, for good and bad. We as citizens, for the most part, no longer have faith in our government. Much like 9/11 changed us so did the sixties.

Although I'd say the 1950's where probably the catalyst for the 60's revolution, with the McCarthyism and what have you.

I tend to be moderate in my views now, were as in my teens I stupidly and blindly followed the libertarians and didn't think for myself about the views I held, I just agreed with them and thought that what I thought should be so.

Now I consider my views, and depending upon the facts I recive as I look into it more and more, I may or may not change my view. That, is the right way to go about it.

Sorry, just had to state that. Don't want to divert this thread from its original point.


----------



## strider72

Mr.Lordi said:


> This is yet another irony when it comes to liberals. If a conservative dares say "Abortion should be illegal" they yell and complain "Oh my God, a woman has a RIGHT to choose, it is her body"


Funny how nobody seems to care for the right of the unborn child on the left(bastard) side.


----------



## hornitosmonster

Do we know exactly how this effects Cigars and pipe tobaccos? 

As for the political stuff...this bill was passing regardless of who was president. The "Evils" of tobacco is one issue that both sides agree on.

If you disagree with me (That it would not have passed with McCain) then explain these numbers

Senate 79-17 vote, and the House followed suit Friday, with a 307-97 vote.


----------



## Cletus

madurolover said:


> Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain............*Winston Churchill*


This quote is often attributed to Winston Churchill when in fact he never said it.

Here's an interesting quote from Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

.


----------



## sounds7

strider72 said:


> Funny how nobody seems to care for the right of the unborn child on the left(bastard) side.


But they cant tax abortion... Or can they? hmmm


----------



## Habanolover

strider72 said:


> Funny how nobody seems to care for the right of the unborn child on the left(bastard) side.


Saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Ever notice how everyone that is for abortion has already been born?"



hornitosmonster said:


> Do we know exactly how this effects Cigars and pipe tobaccos?
> 
> As for the political stuff...this bill was passing regardless of who was president. The "Evils" of tobacco is one issue that both sides agree on.
> 
> If you disagree with me (That it would not have passed with McCain) then explain these numbers
> 
> Senate 79-17 vote, and the House followed suit Friday, with a 307-97 vote.


No doubt. The only difference in politicians these days is one has an (R) before his name and the other has a (D).


----------



## hornitosmonster

Cletus said:


> This quote is often attributed to Winston Churchill when in fact he never said it.
> 
> Here's an interesting quote from Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
> 
> .


found this with a quick google search


> If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
> 
> * According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot when he observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. This quote has been attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, and others.
> * Furthermore, the Churchill Centre, on its Falsely Attributed Quotations page, states "there is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this." Paul Addison of Edinburgh University is quoted as stating: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"


----------



## oldforge

hornitosmonster said:


> Do we know exactly how this effects Cigars and pipe tobaccos?


Short term there will probably be no effect. In the long term this is a complete disaster. What it means is that with a mere regulation the FDA can alter the contents of tobacco products any way they see fit.

Since the only lobbyist with enough clout to have any impact is Phillip Morris (Altria) you can expect a war of attrition against all non-Altria products, including pipe tobacco and cigars.

I keep telling folks--stock up on your favs while you can--because there will come a day when everyone will be getting supplied from the black market or doing without.


----------



## Rev2010

hornitosmonster said:


> As for the political stuff...this bill was passing regardless of who was president. The "Evils" of tobacco is one issue that both sides agree on.
> 
> If you disagree with me (That it would not have passed with McCain) then explain these numbers


Actually you are quite correct. McCain has been lobbying for some time to get the FDA in charge of tobacco. I read a whole thing about this a few days ago.

So yes, had McCain became president this still would've occured.

Rev.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

hornitosmonster said:


> Do we know exactly how this effects Cigars and pipe tobaccos?
> 
> As for the political stuff...this bill was passing regardless of who was president. The "Evils" of tobacco is one issue that both sides agree on.
> 
> If you disagree with me (That it would not have passed with McCain) then explain these numbers
> 
> Senate 79-17 vote, and the House followed suit Friday, with a 307-97 vote.


I just recently found out McCain was for this, which disappointed me. Granted I'm not any more a McCain fan then I am an Obama fan, but the fact he would be for this, when, if I recall right, he was against SCHIP, is disappointing.

That is another thing that makes me laugh. McCain is pro-life, and against SCHIP, I do believe. Can't either candidate get on the same damn page? If you are pro-choice, you should not care more about children all ready born and if you're pro-life, you should care more about those who are born, not just the unborn.

Not even gonna mention the pro-life warrior contradiction. lol

Sigh!



sound7 said:


> But they cant tax abortion... Or can they? hmmm


They could, I'm sure. I mean, there are enough abortions each year, that they would make a killing...:drum:

Poor taste jokes aside, and again, I don't want to skew away from the topic at hand, but Obama passed a bill that makes the tax payers pay for abortions for those who cannot afford them.

I will state, I am not pro-choice, nor am I pro-life; I am pro-responsibility and if someone wants an abortion, it is there job to pay for it, not the tax payers.


----------



## strider72

oldforge said:


> I keep telling folks--stock up on your favs while you can--because there will come a day when everyone will be getting supplied from the black market or doing without.


 Done decided on becoming a liquor/tobacco/gun smuggler if everything goes to hell(like it ain't damn close now).


----------



## s.tyler

obama is a smoker, has smoked marlboro reds for 20+ years.
the bill passed with overwhelming bilateral support, including the support of philip morris. 
not defending it but it would be inaccurate to post this as a liberal conspiracy. our taxes pay for a lot of medicare and medicaid health care and therefore pay for a lot of smoking related illness. reducing that cost will lower our taxes. this bill isnt about cigars. one good aspect of the FDA bill is that ingredients must be public. as a smoker and dipper i definitely want to know whats in my tobacco. making a more informed choice about which product i use is a plus. lastly, this bill does not raise taxes on tobacco.


----------



## Rev2010

s.tyler said:


> our taxes pay for a lot of medicare and medicaid health care and therefore pay for a lot of smoking related illness. reducing that cost will lower our taxes.


I have to respectfully disagree on this part of your post. I do not believe our taxes will come down. If more money is freed up it will be redirected to one of the other million government expenses. I highly doubt they'll just pass it on to us tax payers, especially with such a huge deficit.

And even if they did you have to realize that they still shag us in some other way. I mean, we're already paying a lot more for tobacco sue to the SCHIP bill for example. So they'd probably just tax us somewhere else.

Rev.


----------



## s.tyler

Rev2010 said:


> I have to respectfully disagree on this part of your post. I do not believe our taxes will come down. If more money is freed up it will be redirected to one of the other million government expenses. I highly doubt they'll just pass it on to us tax payers, especially with such a huge deficit.
> 
> And even if they did you have to realize that they still shag us in some other way. I mean, we're already paying a lot more for tobacco sue to the SCHIP bill for example. So they'd probably just tax us somewhere else.
> 
> Rev.


theres some truth to that but painting liberals as fiscally irresponsible doesnt hold up any more. bush did away with budget surpluses because of tax breaks and war. the current administration is advocating pay as you go and not getting any support from republicans.


----------



## plexiprs

s.tyler said:


> theres some truth to that but painting liberals as fiscally irresponsible doesnt hold up any more. bush did away with budget surpluses because of tax breaks and war. the current administration is advocating pay as you go and not getting any support from republicans.


Sometimes, reality sets in even when you promise to ignore it.



> Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.
> 
> Democrats will work on the bill's details next week as they struggle through "what kind of heartburn" it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. The measure's cost is reaching well beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a 10-year down payment for the policy changes.
> 
> *Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, "the answer is yes." Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.*


More taxes anyone??


----------



## brianwalden

Mr.Lordi said:


> This is yet another irony when it comes to liberals. If a conservative dares say "Abortion should be illegal" they yell and complain "Oh my God, a woman has a RIGHT to choose, it is her body"
> 
> Yet when it comes to smoking, we don't have the right to choose what happens to our body?


This seems perfectly consistent to me. They think the government should choose what we do with our bodies and mothers should choose the fate of their children's bodies. When the government won't protect the basic human rights of the weakest among us how can we expect it to protect the trivial ones like enjoying a good smoke every once in a while.


----------



## s.tyler

brianwalden said:


> This seems perfectly consistent to me. They think the government should choose what we do with our bodies and mothers should choose the fate of their children's bodies. When the government won't protect the basic human rights of the weakest among us how can we expect it to protect the trivial ones like enjoying a good smoke every once in a while.


the bill does not ban tobacco nor does the legislation allow for removing nicotine.


----------



## plexiprs

s.tyler said:


> the bill does not ban tobacco nor does the legislation allow for removing nicotine.


So very untrue. THe LAW as submitted to the White House prohibits the following;



> LIMITATION ON POWER GRANTED TO THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION- Because of the importance of a decision of the Secretary to issue a regulation--
> 
> `(A) banning all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll-your-own tobacco products; or
> 
> `(B) requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero,
> 
> the Secretary is prohibited from taking such actions under this Act.


READ the actual text here .... Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


----------



## s.tyler

plexiprs said:


> So very untrue. THe LAW as submitted to the White House prohibits the following;
> 
> READ the actual text here .... Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


nope. they cannot reduce nicotine to zero. they cannot ban cigarettes.

"The bill also would prohibit the FDA from using its new authority to increase the new federal minimum age of 18 to a higher level, require prescriptions for the purchase of tobacco products, ban tobacco product sales in any particular type of sales outlet or regulate tobacco farming directly."

"The legislation would also impose certain limits on the FDA's new authority. Most notably, it would prohibit the FDA from banning conventional tobacco products, such as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, or requiring the total elimination of nicotine in tobacco products. "


----------



## plexiprs

s.tyler said:


> nope. they cannot reduce nicotine to zero. they cannot ban cigarettes.


I am sorry but you originally said ....



s.tyler said:


> the bill does not ban tobacco nor does the legislation allow for removing nicotine.


The proposed Statute I quoted plainly allows the reduction of nicotine, just not to a zero level. I.e., "requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero"

You also said that above that the bill does not ban tobacco. Wrong, it does not ban "... all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll-your-own tobacco products."

As one who daily works in Federal laws, rules, and regulations I can state without hesitation that your statement, "the bill does not ban tobacco" is not factual. The bill prohibits banning "ALL" of certain products, but still quite plainly allows the banning of "tobacco" as a source product.

They *WILL* reduce nicotine levels, or cap nicotine levels, and they *WILL* ban _some_ but not all, tobacco products.

I'll bet on it right now.

Are you willing to passively accept the .00001% of tobacco products they do not ban in the name of your improved health? I am not .....


----------



## Raybird

plexiprs said:


> I am sorry but you originally said ....
> 
> Are you willing to passively accept the .00001% of tobacco products they do not ban in the name of your improved health? I am not .....


Same Here! :nono:


----------



## strider72

Not to mention the tobacco industry employees they put out on the street... this will fix the economy. Americans are going to have to get off their duff and see all this for what it really is.


----------



## sounds7

s.tyler said:


> theres some truth to that but painting liberals as fiscally irresponsible doesnt hold up any more. bush did away with budget surpluses because of tax breaks and war.* the current administration is advocating pay as you go and not getting any support from republicans*.


yea they (liberals) spend and we (tax payers) pay thats how it works. Too much socialism for me. I have lived in Europe and while they have quite a lot going for them this is one thing I get an earful on, They get nearly half their income taken by Government taxes and regulation. My Brother in Law is an Engineer working for the Space industry in Amsterdam (Works on Telescopes), yet he lives so much more modestly than I , a mere Teacher and Musician here in the States. I am not so sure how long that will be the case though.
Socialism doesn't work and regulating everything that "Big Brother" wants to put his hands on doesn't work either. We will be the ones to pay for this intrusion on our Liberties.


----------



## golfermd

Liberal aren't really "liberals" anymore. They aren't about personal freedoms, rights, or responsibilities. They are about socialism. Period! :director:


----------



## plexiprs

golfermd said:


> Liberal aren't really "liberals" anymore. They aren't about personal freedoms, rights, or responsibilities. They are about socialism. Period! :director:


Yaaaa hooo!

​


----------



## Habanolover

Ok guys, let's get this back on track and discuss the bill. We all seem to be getting further into the Right/Left argument here. Regardless of which side it is we are here to discuss what, if any repercussions it will have on us as tobacco users.


----------



## sounds7

madurolover said:


> Ok guys, let's get this back on track and discuss the bill. We all seem to be getting further into the Right/Left argument here. Regardless of which side it is we are here to discuss what, if any repercussions it will have on us as tobacco users.


For starters i see the affect being price. much like when regulation of the gasoline industry caused higher production costs especially in summer months. Even if only one segment of the tobacco industry is hit by the legislation (Cigarettes) the prices will certainly go higher on other types of tobacco as well in order for companies to absorb the cost of adhering to stricter guidelines.

You may see some tobacco become more and more scarce as they will no longer be profitable to produce. They may streamline so as to avoid the tedious processes that tobacco makers are sure to have to deal with.

And finally, God forbid, some may fold up shop and just quit making it for the US all together and focus their attention on less regulated markets.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

plexiprs said:


> Yaaaa hooo!
> 
> ​


I see Wal-Mart finally got a logo better suited to them...lol! I'm half tempted to use that as my avatar.



sounds7 said:


> For starters i see the affect being price. much like when regulation of the gasoline industry caused higher production costs especially in summer months. Even if only one segment of the tobacco industry is hit by the legislation (Cigarettes) the prices will certainly go higher on other types of tobacco as well in order for companies to absorb the cost of adhering to stricter guidelines.


If only ciggs are hit, how are the prices going to go up on other tobacco? Even most OTC, if not all, are produced by companies that don't even sell ciggs, as far as I know.


----------



## sounds7

Thing is the tobacco companies are more diversified than you might think.
http://www.medibix.com/CompanySearch.jsp?cs_choice=t&clt_choice=t&treepath=19250&stype=i

1. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the nation's 10 best-selling cigarettes and distributes a variety of tobacco products manufactured by its subsidiary - Lane, Limited who also makes pipe tobacco. 
2. Imperial Tobacco owns Altadis - World's Largest Cigar Manufacturer and makes several pipe blends, oh and they own 800 Jr Cigars .
3.Brittish American Tobacco is another that produces Cigarettes and Pipe tobacco.
4. Gallaher Group now owned by Japan Tobacco has brands including cigarettes and cigars such as Benson & Hedges, Silk Cut, Sterling Mayfair, Kensitas Club, Senior Service, Amber Leaf, Sobranie and Hamlet Cigars.
5. Philip Morris USA (Altria) - Marlboro Cigarettes, John Middleton Cigars, Skoal Copenhagen Smokeless

Also demand will go up for other types of smokes as the Cigarette crowd comes over to our side. With increased demand comes increased price.

Besides I truly do not expect the Government to stop with cigarettes. New legislation is just around the corner. Search your feelings you know it to be true.


----------



## plexiprs

madurolover said:


> Ok guys, let's get this back on track and discuss the bill. We all seem to be getting further into the Right/Left argument here. Regardless of which side it is we are here to discuss what, if any repercussions it will have on us as tobacco users.


Easy; fewer offerings, greater cost and then in time, if things continue on this course, nothing.

If people move away from cigarettes to cigars and pipes or smokeless then the focus moves with them. Fact is, tobacco is bad for you and bad for me. Of course too much water will kill you, too much oxygen will kill you ..... etc.

This assault is not new, it began in the 50's and had advanced in lurches, with stumbles. Now the road ahead seems to be at its smoothest for the anti-crowd.


----------



## Zodduska

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds for pipe tobacco and cigars.. I truly hope it will not have a large impact.


----------



## Raybird

So I'm watching Obama and that collection of scoundrels sign the anti-tobacco legislation. As i'm watching this I am enjoying my first smoke of the day (a Los Blancos Sumatra) and pondering: if tobacco is so evil why not ban it? how many of these bastards enjoy a good cigar or pipe (cigarettes too, like our president)? why are we not capable of preserving simple freedoms? isn't this unconstitutional?


----------



## plexiprs

Before signing the embargo against Cuba, JFK sent his _valet,_ Pierre, out to round up all his favorite Habanos so he wouldn't have to go without. No matter the party, no matter the rhetoric, no matter their current posture; all politicians are deeply and emotionally concerned about doing right by number one. That would be themselves, of course.

Unconstitutional? Perhaps, but this legislation is focused on the manufacturers, importers and distributors, not the consumers. We have no standing; at this time.


----------



## nativetexan_1

Am I wrong to not fear this legislation? Rather, I fear the regulations put into place by the FDA later, that do not hat to pass muster with Congress - those infamous entries in the Federal Register that become law in 30 days if not stopped by Congress.


----------



## golfermd

What goes around comes around. It's a law. Laws can be overturned by future laws (except "temporary taxes"). :smoke2:


----------



## sgraham.texas

Not that it is any surprise, but the same FDA that thinks french fries are vegetables and makes a consorted effort to push processed crap down the throats of our children in school is the same FDA trying to control the choices of free Americans to smoke. They approve flavored milks over regular milk which has more sugar than soda. This is among other common senseless decisions affecting our children in which we have little to no control. There is scientific evidence that the junk food is unhealthy for the kids but only circumstantial evidence that smoking (inhaling) causes lung cancer. They stuff the trash in our kids and try to take our simple pleasures. How backwards is that...

What a world... What a world....


----------



## Louis_Ray

Raybird said:


> The government wants to "protect" us from the evils of tobacco? Each freedom they take away from us makes it easier to take away another. I don't need these effin' nazis to protect me from myself! I never thought I would miss George Bush.


Very easy to cry while you're sucking at the govt teat, Mr. Retired Army who is 64 yrs old (medicaid age).

Should edit your profile so it doesn't show the irony and douchebagery in your statement.

Just saying.


----------



## Cletus

Louis_Ray said:


> Very easy to cry while you're sucking at the govt teat, Mr. Retired Army who is 64 yrs old (medicaid age).
> 
> Should edit your profile so it doesn't show the irony and douchebagery in your statement.
> 
> Just saying.


Very bad form, especially for your first post.

Just sayin'....

.


----------



## Louis_Ray

Cletus said:


> Very bad form, especially for your first post.
> 
> Just sayin'....
> 
> .


I've read every post in this thread, and there are quite a few folks that seem to have beaten me to the "very bad form" punch, as you've put it.

Just stating the obviously idiotic nature in which the person stated above used the "evil nazi govt" to prosper in life, but as soon as a ban comes along on candy flavored tobacco to better protect children (who knew Army guys liked candy flavord cigars..) they are up in arms, and act like that law will affect their lives to the point they can no longer seek liberty, freedom, or happiness.

As a military family ourselves, the words uttered by this so called "army man" sound semi-treacherous to me and what I was taught in the service.

I didn't quite see where both sides were being represented here in. To me, sounds like a lot of "I want my cake and to eat it to" mentality to.

Get real. Ya don't like it, vote out the "evil nazis". If that doesn't work, move.

Not exactly here to make friends. Here to get cigar reviews, cigar rolling information, and cigar news. New members come across quite a bit of anti-"gubmint" rhetoric on this site it seems. Not that I'll be a regular member here (not quite the same ideology as myself), but it seems that if you want to be endearing to a wide demographic of potential customers, maybe limiting the "nazi" lingo a bit might help wayward stogie lovers find this forum a bit more welcoming.

Just sayin.


----------



## Plop007

Louis_Ray said:


> Not exactly here to make friends. Here to get cigar reviews, cigar rolling information, and cigar news.
> Just sayin.


We can't be friends??

:frown:


----------



## 2Curious

Great! 
So now I have to go out back and dig my hidden bunker a little larger to stash my cigars, and hide them next to my guns. At the rate they are trying to outlaw things, there will likely be more stuff in the bunker than in my house.


----------



## commonsenseman

Louis_Ray said:


> I've read every post in this thread, and there are quite a few folks that seem to have beaten me to the "very bad form" punch, as you've put it.
> 
> Just stating the obviously idiotic nature in which the person stated above used the "evil nazi govt" to prosper in life, but as soon as a ban comes along on candy flavored tobacco to better protect children (who knew Army guys liked candy flavord cigars..) they are up in arms, and act like that law will affect their lives to the point they can no longer seek liberty, freedom, or happiness.
> 
> As a military family ourselves, the words uttered by this so called "army man" sound semi-treacherous to me and what I was taught in the service.
> 
> I didn't quite see where both sides were being represented here in. To me, sounds like a lot of "I want my cake and to eat it to" mentality to.
> 
> Get real. Ya don't like it, vote out the "evil nazis". If that doesn't work, move.
> 
> Not exactly here to make friends. Here to get cigar reviews, cigar rolling information, and cigar news. New members come across quite a bit of anti-"gubmint" rhetoric on this site it seems. Not that I'll be a regular member here (not quite the same ideology as myself), but it seems that if you want to be endearing to a wide demographic of potential customers, maybe limiting the "nazi" lingo a bit might help wayward stogie lovers find this forum a bit more welcoming.
> 
> Just sayin.


Ok, I'll try to take a stab it this without getting myself into too much trouble. 

I understand your frustration with Ray getting gov't funds. However retired soldiers deserve our respect & a whole lot more. (the military is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government anyway) If he was in the military he deserves to be taken care of as far as I'm concerned.

What I believe Ray is talking about is that we're slowly sacrificing our freedoms on the altar of "security". I for one am sick of giving up this or that just because "it's good for me" according to some moron who "knows best". I will not stand for it anymore, perhaps it's candy flavored tobacco today. Tomorrow it will be fast food, or sugary soft drinks (both are already happening btw). It's just one more step in the direction of tyranny. 

As far as the rest of you comments go. I would suggest showing a little more respect to those that have been around longer & especially to somebody who has served in the armed forces. Name calling will not get us anywhere except more pissed off.


----------



## smelvis

commonsenseman said:


> Ok, I'll try to take a stab it this without getting myself into too much trouble.
> 
> I understand your frustration with Ray getting gov't funds. However retired soldiers deserve our respect & a whole lot more. (the military is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government anyway) If he was in the military he deserves to be taken care of as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> What I believe Ray is talking about is that we're slowly sacrificing our freedoms on the altar of "security". I for one am sick of giving up this or that just because "it's good for me" according to some moron who "knows best". I will not stand for it anymore, perhaps it's candy flavored tobacco today. Tomorrow it will be fast food, or sugary soft drinks (both are already happening btw). It's just one more step in the direction of tyranny.
> 
> As far as the rest of you comments go. I would suggest showing a little more respect to those that have been around longer & especially to somebody who has served in the armed forces. Name calling will not get us anywhere except more pissed off.


Well said Jeff
I wish I had the words a retired vet EARNED it many dare I say most in Gov don't. As forest say's that's all I have to say about that.

Thanks Jeff!!


----------



## tpharkman

I am simply shaking my head. The Congressional Black Caucus is supposed to be an organization that looks out for and protects the best interest of Black America. So what do they do? Fight for the exemption of menthol cigs because the majority of menthols are smoked by african americans. The irony is that we are led to believe by these same politicians that cig smoking is very harmful to your health and should basically be illegal. So they are fighting for the rights of Black America while at the same time making it more affordable for them to keep on killing themselves with menthol cigs. 

Please tell me I am not the only one to notice this completely ridiculous double standard. One more thing, McCain labeled himself a republican but let us not fool ourselves, he is no conservative.

Now I am completely speechless.


----------



## Louis_Ray

commonsenseman said:


> Ok, I'll try to take a stab it this without getting myself into too much trouble.
> 
> I understand your frustration with Ray getting gov't funds. However retired soldiers deserve our respect & a whole lot more. (the military is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government anyway) If he was in the military he deserves to be taken care of as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> What I believe Ray is talking about is that we're slowly sacrificing our freedoms on the altar of "security". I for one am sick of giving up this or that just because "it's good for me" according to some moron who "knows best". I will not stand for it anymore, perhaps it's candy flavored tobacco today. Tomorrow it will be fast food, or sugary soft drinks (both are already happening btw). It's just one more step in the direction of tyranny.
> 
> As far as the rest of you comments go. I would suggest showing a little more respect to those that have been around longer & especially to somebody who has served in the armed forces. Name calling will not get us anywhere except more pissed off.


You are absolutely correct. I am sorry for calling anyone a name if that was how it was taken. I was referring more to his statement than the man himself.

I too have family in the military, and agree they should be met with a level of respect. But that respect should also be shown by the military when referencing leaders above them in the government or armed forces. It upsets me greatly when the men and women of the armed forces trash talk their leaders. I guess it just comes down to the saying, "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

I came across this site in my search for information regarding growing tobacco, as THIS is how you defeat government imposed tobacco taxes. I grow my own veggies, fruits, and medicines. We raise our own animals for food, and use solar energy to heat our water and power our home. I use dehumidifyers and a reverse osmosis system to create clean water from nothing. I know this sounds liberal to a lot of folks, but I feel it is as conservative as one can be.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone in my first post. Especially Ray. I shouldn't have taken the low road and resorted to personal belittlement.

Now....

:focus:


----------



## tpharkman

You are conservative in the fact that you are conservation minded. Conservation is a word rarely used anymore because the word in and of itself is not as flashy or political as "green". I am all about conservation and controlling what we as individuals can control and I applaud your personal efforts in that regard.

I prefer to drink my medicine and smoke my vegetables!!


----------



## Louis_Ray

tpharkman said:


> You are conservative in the fact that you are conservation minded. Conservation is a word rarely used anymore because the word in and of itself is not as flashy or political as "green". I am all about conservation and controlling what we as individuals can control and I applaud your personal efforts in that regard.
> 
> I prefer to drink my medicine and smoke my vegetables!!


Welp, if it's green, fire it up! :redface:


----------



## tpharkman

I am not talking about hippie lettuce.:hippie: All tobacoo was green at one time so I just assumed it was somewhere in the veggie family but then again maybe not.


----------



## Louis_Ray

Hippie Lettuce? What is that?


----------



## pistol

Louis_Ray said:


> Hippie Lettuce? What is that?


Are you being serious? If you are then it's also called marijuana, pot, bud, mary jane, the sticky icky icky, denk, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## tpharkman

Cabbage, rope, oklahoma baby buds, texas red, maui wowie, thai stick, mexican swag, and my personal favorite Iowa ditch. Now:focus:


----------



## Jack Straw

Louis_Ray said:


> It upsets me greatly when the men and women of the armed forces trash talk their leaders. I guess it just comes down to the saying, "don't bite the hand that feeds you".


So any active or former government employee or armed services member shouldn't be allowed to have opinions about the government? What is this, Nazi Germany? In case you didn't know, one of the founding precepts of this country was the idea that we the people should be able to say what we think. It shouldn't matter where his retirement package is coming from. The government shouldn't be praised just because it's the government. They don't always do the "right" thing, as history has shown. In fact, the leaders of this country almost always base their election campaigns on what they think (or want people to think they think) the gov't has effed up on, and how they can fix it.


----------



## 2Curious

Andrew, it does sound crazy but, it's partially true... the UCMJ is clear on this, to a point. I was in JAG with the Army for 6 years. The UCMJ, unlike civilian law, is black and white, not gray. Also, the rights of a civilian and US Military personnel are very different.

Example:
When I first went to Panama with the Army, I was up in the mountains one weekend off-duty, enjoying the sites, etc. I ended up with the most horrible sunburn, legs, arms, face. Techinically I could have received an Article 15, or more severe punishment, if the sunburn was bad enough to interfere with me performing my duties, for.... [drum roll...pause for dramatic effect...]... "Damage to Government Property" !!!
Get it, I was, at that time, Government Property.​Subchapter X "Punitive Articles", Article 88 "Contempt toward officials":


> "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."





> The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither "Congress" nor "legislature" includes its members individually. "Governor" does not include "lieutenant governor." It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticiscm of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
> Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.





> This code of laws applies not just to active-duty officers but to retired ones, too. It's right there in Article 2, Section (a) (5): Persons subject to the UCMJ include "_retired_ members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." The key phrase is "entitled to pay." If you resign from the military, and thus give up all retirement pay and benefits, you're free from the clutches of military law.


The hardest part for me, even as a legal person, is the actual definition of "contemptuous", as teh UCMJ does not define it, or clarify it.



> The only guidance that the Defense Department's public-affairs office could come up with was this definition from _The Military Judges' Benchbook_, paragraph 3-12-1d:
> "Contemptuous" means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness. ​


----------



## Ducrider

From what I've briefly read, it looks like these laws are designed to get at i) advertising of tobacco products at kids (i.e. ads can't be in places kids will see them, around schools, etc), ii) more visible warning labels, and iii) forcing disclosure of whats in cigarettes and tobacco products.

My problem with all of that is not whats on the face of the legislation, but the fact that it is just another back-door way to "encourage" (read: force) people to quit smoking.



> "The new products are ways around the indoor air laws, which have been a big component of the 'stop smoking' campaigns," he says. "Three things have encouraged people to quit since the surgeon general's report in 1964 [which declared smoking a health hazard] - high prices ... fresh air and indoor air laws that have encouraged people to quit, because it's stigmatized smoking, and education and knowledge about the dangers of smoking."
> 
> In addition, Wilson says, the new FDA regulations may help the 20.6 percent of U.S. adults who smoke stop their deadly habit.
> 
> "Ultimately the FDA will have to set new standards about what's in regular cigarettes," Wilson says. "The FDA is going to consider how much nicotine they should have. Congress won't allow them to reduce the level to zero because that's prohibited, but they can reduce the level significantly. And some public health advocates think that might be a way to wean people off this addiction."


Fresh Air Intervews: New York Times reporter Duff Wilson : NPR

I'm not opposed to protecting kids or forcing disclosure of what goes into a cigarette, but the reality is this has much broader intention, which is what makes me nervous. If you want to encourage people to quit smoking, then publish all the educational materials you want, but don't *make *me do anything.

And I agree with an earlier post that this is not a partisan issue. Just look at the votes. I think the reality is that Republicans and Democrats alike are going to regulate the crap out of tobacco until the smoking rate is only a few percent.

As an aside - I think we can talk about this respectfully without personal insults or starting a political debate on broader left-right issues.


----------



## Ducrider

tpharkman said:


> I am simply shaking my head. The Congressional Black Caucus is supposed to be an organization that looks out for and protects the best interest of Black America. So what do they do? Fight for the exemption of menthol cigs because the majority of menthols are smoked by african americans. The irony is that we are led to believe by these same politicians that cig smoking is very harmful to your health and should basically be illegal. So they are fighting for the rights of Black America while at the same time making it more affordable for them to keep on killing themselves with menthol cigs.


Didn't they seek to ADD menthol to the legislation so the FDA could restrict it?

See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/business/01menthol.html


----------



## tpharkman

Russ--I certainly could have read it wrong but I thought in one of the posts it said that they were fighting to exempt any extra taxes or whatever on menthol smokes. If I read it wrong I apologize for the post.


----------



## Ducrider

tpharkman said:


> Russ--I certainly could have read it wrong but I thought in one of the posts it said that they were fighting to exempt any extra taxes or whatever on menthol smokes. If I read it wrong I apologize for the post.


No need to apologize, bro. Just trying to sort this stuff out myself! :bounce:


----------



## Jack Straw

When they first talked about the whole flavored tobacco thing, the NAACP and other similarly interested groups cried bloody murder that banning menthol cigarettes would unfairly target the black community, so menthol was given a get out of jail free card.


----------

